[v6ops] Dual ISP deployment operational issues and uncertainties

[Klaus Frank <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

from a twitter discussion I had with other admins I'd like to forward a 
problem to this mailing list.

When designing and deploying a redundant IPv6 network with two uplinks 
the current design is to use IPv6-PI space for the internal network. But 
when we would scale this approach to all businesses that have (or want 
to have) redundant uplinks it would pollute and fragment the global 
routing tables (making full table lookups harder).

Someone said that they consider using NAT66 for this. But as we all know 
NAT66 is exactly what we don't want with IPv6 ;-)

For client only networks we could just deprecate the prefix on 
switchover, but that would only allow a active-passive utilization while 
both are active. But for servers?

Also another issue is that at least here none of the standard contracts 
with ISPs contains BGP for announcing the IPv6-PI space. And only 
increasing the plan to an enterprise level with a way higher monthly fee 
is also an adoption blocker compared to just buying multiple of the 
cheaper lines with IPv4.

So therefore these questions arise:

  * Is there anything that admins can do right now (without an updated
    or additional RFC) to solve this?
  * Is doing a "full view" just something one shouldn't be doing anymore
    with IPv6?
  * Considering the above, is the best way to buy services from a
    centralized anycast as a service provider and have a redundant
    connection to them? (Which kinda would work against the reason why
    we have people doing full view BGP in the first place. It also kinda
    would introduce a new single point of failure into the High
    Availability environment).
  * Mobile IPv6 also looks kinda interesting in this context, but I
    don't know of any suitable suitable real world deployment. Esp. not
    over WAN.
  * Am I just not seeing the forest for the trees?

Sincerely,
Klaus Frank